Kytro wrote on Oct 17
th, 2008 at 2:53pm:
People will stand up for what they believe, but that doesn't make it fact.
true.
Kytro wrote on Oct 17
th, 2008 at 2:53pm:
Yadda wrote on Oct 17
th, 2008 at 1:19pm:
Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
How very convenient that you must first surrender reason before you can find the truth
Kytro,
In my experience, looking for, searching for, TRUTH is not irrational, or a surrender of reason.
For example....
Evolutionists says [claim] that creation is a fable.
But the so-called 'science' of evolution is built on a foundation of sand.....
For many decades science has *taught* that petrification [mineralisation of organic material] takes millions of years.
But it has been proved, that petrification of organic material can take place, in less than 20 years.
http://hissheep.org/evolution/proof_of_rapid_petrification.htmlhttp://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5179/Google,
rapid petrification
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=rapid+petrification&btnG=Google+Search&m...Think of the consequences of this *fact*, on our understanding of the age of [dinosaur] fossils.
'Scientific' dating of geologic layers is a fraud....
In June of 1992, Dr Austin collected a 7-kg (15-lb) block of dacite from high on the lava dome......
The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St Helens and
was only 10 years old.
.....
the [dating] results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Why?.....
the results from the different samples of the *same rock* disagree with each other.
It is clear that radioisotope dating is not....proof for millions of years of Earth history.
When the method is tested on rocks of known age, it fails miserably.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/radiodating.aspGoogle,
fossil dating a fraud
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=fossil+dating+a+fraud&btnG=Google+Search...Don't you consider it
perverse that [some] scientists
do suppress, or ignore, evidence which could be viewed as contradictory to 'mainstream' hypothesises [e.g. evolution]?
Or that sometimes scientists will falsify evidence, because there are grants of $$$$$$, at stake.
The
theory of 'Evolution' is a belief [system], er aka, .....
religion, a fable???